| CODE No. | NP/SM/0609/0463 | P.FILE No. | 2465 | GRID REF | 399961 / 362351 | |----------|-----------------|------------|------|----------|-----------------| | APPLICANT | c/o AGENT | Ms A Harvey | FBC Manby Bowdler LLP | Routh House | Hall Court | Hall Park Way | Telford | Shropshire | TF 3 4NJ | Tel No. | 01952 292129 | | RECEIVED | AT PDNPA | 05/06/2009 | DATE VALID | 11/06/2009 | | APPL TYPE | PROPOSAL | LDCP | Application for Certificate of Lawful Development for proposed use as a dwelling. | | LOCATION | Mount Pleasant | Upper Hulme | Leek | | PARISH | Leekfrith | | ADVERT DATE | LAST ADVERT DATE | | | CONSTRAINT(S) | Plot File Boundary | 2465 | | CONSULTATIONS | DATE SENT | DATE REPLY | | NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATIONS | | | COMMITTEE | | | DECISION | Rejected | Date 27/8/09 | | APPEAL | Date Lodged | Decision | Date | ENFORCEMENT RECORD CARD

This card should be filed immediately in front of the decision notice which in turn should be in front of a set of approved plans.

The following amendments have been formally agreed by the planning officer since the issue of the decision notice:

| DATE | DETAILS | |------|---------| | | |

The following conditions have been formally complied with since the issue of the decision notice:

| DATE | COND.NO | DETAILS | |------|---------|---------| | | | |

## SITE VISIT RECORD

| DATE | INSPECTION | PROGRESS | DEPARTURES | |------|------------|----------|------------| | | | | |

### KEY DATES TO NOTE

| DATE | DETAILS | |------|---------| | | |

### KEY FACTORS TO WATCH

| DETAILS | |---------| | | Site plan Scale 1:600

HULME UPRIGHT MANNING ARCHITECTS TOWN PLANNERS INTERIOR DESIGNERS

Highpoint Festival Park Hanley Stoke-on-Trent ST1 5SH

Tel: 01782 208600 Fax: 01782 206080

Email - stoke@hum-arch.co.uk

Client Mrs A. Harvey

Project Existing plans to Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Title Plan as Existing

Status

Date May 09 Drawn ME Scale As Shown Checked Job Ref. Drawing No. Revision Dear Mr Blackie

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Application for Certificate of Lawfulness relating to Mount Pleasant, Upper Hulme, Leek.

Your client's application in respect of the above matter has now been determined by the Authority and refused. I enclose the refusal letter herewith, together with a copy of the delegated report for your information.

Should you wish to appeal against the Authority's decision, details of how to do this are given in the refusal letter.

If you have any queries in connection with this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Mrs J L Birkin Senior Legal Officer Legal Services Dear Madam

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT

Your application under the provisions of Section 192(1) of the above mentioned Act, dated 5 June 2009 and received as valid by the Authority on 11 June 2009 has been duly considered.

The application was in respect of a claim for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a proposed use as a dwelling in respect of land at Mount Pleasant, Upper Hulme, Leek as shown edged red on the attached plan ("the Property").

You are hereby given Notice that the application is REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. It is considered that the residential use of the Property had, by June 2008, been abandoned, and that the existing lawful use of Property is a nil use.
2. Any resumption of the use of the Property for residential purposes would therefore require planning permission.

Peak District National Park Authority Aldern House Baslow Road BAKEWELL Derbyshire DE4 1JE

Yours faithfully

B H Primhak Head of Law

(Address to which all communications should be sent)

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU SHOULD READ THE NOTES ON THE REVERSE OF THIS FORM NOTES

Appeals to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

If you are aggrieved by a determination of your local planning authority under Section 192, then you can appeal to the DCLG under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

You can submit your appeal online via the Planning Portal website at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs, or you may submit your appeal using a form which you can get from the Planning Inspectorate (DCLG), The Registry, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN. Tel: 0117 372 8034 Fax: 0117 372 8782. Copyright of this drawing is vested in the Architect and it must not be copied or reproduced without consent. Figured dimensions only are to be taken from this drawing. All contractors must visit the site and be responsible for taking and checking all dimensions relative to their work. Hume Upright Manning to be advised of any variation between drawings and site conditions.

DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING:...........IF IN DOUBT ASK

| Rev. | Drawn | Comments | Date | |------|-------|----------|------|

Site location plan

Scale 1:1250 Application for Lawful Use – Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme, Near Leek.

1. Application – for proposed use is the resumption of occupation of a residential dwellinghouse. This information is given in para. 1 of the Supporting Information and no description of the application is given in the application form.

2. Evidence submitted with application

2.1 Applicants’ statement - None

2.2 Documentary evidence -

2.2.1 Document ‘A’ - Letter from [redacted] which states:-

- Mount Pleasant was [redacted] family’s home from 1930 until July 2008 when it was sold upon the death of [redacted] who owned it.

- It was owned by Tattons Silk Mill [redacted] and [redacted] in 1930.

- At one time there were 8 members of [redacted] family living at Mount Pleasant and it was a very happy home for many years to come.

- The property had electricity installed in 1963 and the telephone was connected in the early 1970’s.

- [redacted] father’s garden was very important to him …..vegetables and flowers were grown.

- [redacted] bought Mount Pleasant in the early [redacted] to ensure that it would always remain a family home.

- [redacted] unexpectedly passed away in March 2008.

- [redacted] had fond memories of [redacted] childhood and adult life at Mount Pleasant, and the precious time [redacted] and this was one of the reasons [redacted] did not want to sell it during [redacted] lifetime.

- [redacted] died in [redacted] maintained the property until [redacted] death, after which various members of the family helped [redacted] look after the place.

- The thunderbox outdoor loo was taken down in the 1980’s as an internal loo had been installed some time earlier.

- [redacted] had the roof repaired, and the chimney pots replaced. [redacted] kept the place tidy and it was carpeted and furnished.

- The property was broken into and the fireplace and water geyser were stolen. [redacted] had died by then so ‘we’ repaired the property for [redacted] and the break in was reported to the police. The property was broken into again on several further occasions.

- The rear roof (heavy sandstone flags) was stolen one night in 1995, and the property fell into a state of disrepair from then onwards due to water ingress and further vandalism.

- Mount Pleasant was furnished and carpeted, but these items were stolen or destroyed by the vandals over the subsequent years. There was a dressing table and other items of furniture strewn on the road on one occasion, and all the lovely old floor slabs were stolen.

- It was never [redacted] intention for the property to become so run down, and [redacted] always intended for it to be a residential dwelling, but once the roof was stolen it was impossible for [redacted] both financially and practically – with the security issues – to restore it sufficiently to prevent it falling into a state of disrepair.

- [redacted] was a very proud and single minded [redacted] who would not ask for help from the family, and kept everything very close. had a marked effect on for the rest of life. could not bear to get rid of the long standing family home Mount Pleasant, which held so many happy memories of childhood and family life, and where held on to those memories very dearly, and always considered Mount Pleasant to be family home, albeit in a state of some disrepair in latter years.

- It seems incredible that there is any question over Mount Pleasant being a home, just because was unable to maintain the property due to theft, wanton vandalism, finances and encroaching old age.

2.2.2 Document 'B' – Bundle of standard printed letters. signed by family members. Seven further slightly amended copies (taking out reference to family) signed by All standard letters contain the following information:-

- Mount Pleasant was formerly owned by who sadly passed away in
- lived at Mount Pleasant until deaths in the
- After deaths in the did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant – repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property. (Comment: this conflicts with statement saying electric services connected in the 1963 and telephone early 1970’s).
- There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time.
- Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen ie, stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into disrepair over the years.
- The property has never been used for any other purpose, and intention was always that it could be occupied as a residential dwelling.

2.2.3 Document 'C' - Structural Appraisal by aba Consulting carried out for the Applicant. This document provides information on the structural condition of the building as at 26 May 2009, including the following statements:-

- "The building is an old stone cottage that is currently being renovated. Various repairs have already been carried out."
- "Given the age of the building, it is in relatively good condition."
- "...the building is of substantial construction notwithstanding the state it was in prior to the repair works being undertaken."

Comment: The survey is not indicative of the structural condition of the property in 2008 when purchased by the Applicant. Works of renovation including a new roof and underpinning the building have been carried out. These works are currently under investigation by the enforcement team – see enforcement file.

2.3 Supporting Submission from planning agent - which contains the following information:-

- Background information on the history of occupation of the dwelling since it was built in 1844 through to the 1970’s when it became vacant. The agent refers to the letter provided by [redacted] as to the occupation of the property by the [redacted] (Doc.A) stating that it 'confirms the details of the historic use of the property, the circumstances of their acquisition, the use of the property during their ownership, and the intentions of the family in respect of the dwelling. The history of the site clearly indicates that neither the use of the dwellinghouse on site, or the use of the land for residential purposes has been abandoned. It is the case that the dwelling, although used more infrequently in recent years, was intended for use as a dwelling by the [redacted] and latterly by the Applicants. The applicants also refer to a further letter, produced and signed by various family members, including three [redacted] and which confirms that there has never been any intention to use the property for any purpose other than a residential dwelling. (Doc. B).'

Discussion of case law referred to in support, as follows:-

Hughes – "The relevant test against which the lawfulness of Mount Pleasant should be considered is that set out in the Court of Appeal case of Hughes v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & the Regions and South Holland District Council [2000] JPL 826. The Court of Appeal considered what was the proper test for establishing whether the use of a property continued and concluded that the relevant factors to be considered were: i) The physical condition of the property; ii) The length of time for which the building had not been used for residential purposes; iii) Whether it had been used for any other purposes; iv) The owners' intentions having regard for what the reasonable man, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, would conclude.

Physical Condition. In older age, the upkeep became more of a task, and following [redacted] death, [redacted] found it more difficult to keep the property in good repair and secure. The dwellinghouse has been subject, in recent years, to vandalism. Part of the roof was stolen in 1995 resulting in water ingress and causing further damage. Following [redacted] acquisition of the property [redacted] and [redacted] managed the upkeep of the property. A structural report is attached marked "C". The works of repair recently carried out did not materially affect the external appearance of the building and did not, accordingly, amount to development, by virtue of s55(2)(a) of the Act. The question of physical condition of the property must be addressed at today's date. The report shows that it is sound, with only a little further structural work being recommended. The other works needed to render it habitable would be internal, and again, not such as to amount to development.

Length of time not used / Used for other purposes. Until the [redacted] the application property was used as a permanent dwelling by [redacted]. From that time until about [redacted] the dwelling was kept in use though not occupied by [redacted] who used to visit the property regularly to maintain it and look after it. The residential use of the property and its garden continued during [redacted] ownership and it has never been the intention of [redacted] or indeed the Applicants, to abandon the use of the dwelling on site or the land which comprises its curtilage and gardens. Certainly there has been no intervening use of the dwelling or of its curtilage and garden areas. The period on non-use after 1995 when the roof was stolen is not long enough to be material in planning terms.

Intention. [redacted] always retained a keen interest in the property which, for [redacted] brought back many fond memories. [redacted] visited it regularly and despite ageing years, demonstrated a clear intention to maintain the dwellinghouse use. Some attempts were made to carry out works of maintenance to the property: arranged for the outside toilet to be demolished and had parts of the roof and chimneys repaired. Following a break-in at the property, reported the matter to the police. Also managed various internal works of maintenance and repair. Notwithstanding efforts, the property fell into disrepair, exacerbated by damage caused by vandals during the last few years. There has never been a point where the owner had an intention contrary to use as a dwelling.

Hale - Even before the case of Hughes, the intention of parties has been considered to be a determinative factor in addressing the continuance of a residential use over time. In 1979, the issue was addressed in the case of Hale v Lichfield District Council [1979] JPL 425. In that instance, Mrs Hale had spent the last 13 years of her life in hospital during which time her home was entirely left empty and no repairs were carried out. Following her death, personal representatives of the estate obtained a declaration to the effect that the residential use of the property had not been abandoned due to her clear intention to maintain it as her home. The circumstances in Hale are similar to that of Mount Pleasant where it has been the advancing years and personal circumstances of the owner which have lead to the property falling into disrepair.

- The agent claims that "the physical condition of the building does not of itself lead to a conclusion of abandonment. The property remains substantially complete and there is no need for any element of rebuilding or substantial renovation to bring the property up to modern standards for habitation. Whist it is not currently occupied as a permanent residence, it has remained lawfully in residential use, until recently being furnished and looked after. It is clear, therefore, that the residential use of the site has not been extinguished. Accordingly, the use remains lawful and a reversion to that use would not constitute a material change."

- The agent summarises as follows: - "The existing property on site was occupied as a main family residence from at least 1930 until the late 1970s, at which time it had been purchased by with the sole intention that it remain a residential property in the family ownership. Deeds and documents have indicated that the property was in fact used as a family residence from its construction in 1844. The present condition of the dwelling precludes its use currently, although the evidence submitted with this application makes clear that there has never been any intention to abandon the dwellinghouse use. The reason for its state of disrepair is quite simply due to the increased instances of vandalism and break-in during the owner's advancing years at a time when it was not used as a daily residence. The residential use has neither been abandoned nor extinguished. The use was, lawfully, dormant in the context of the case of Panton (R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Panton (1999) 79 P & CR 485).

The current owners and Applicants purchased the property with the intention that it be brought back into habitable use. The Applicants had not considered that the previous dwellinghouse use might be considered by the local planning authority to be abandoned, given the clear intention of the previous owner to maintain the status quo, the relatively short period of non-occupation, and indeed the previous owner's attempts at carrying out repairs to the property despite having lost and grown old age. Applying the test set out in Hughes, it is clear that the residential use has not been abandoned and that a reasonable man having regard for the circumstances of the matter would conclude that a residential use remained. Accordingly, and on the basis of the supporting evidence, a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use should be granted for the resumption of occupation of the dwelling and the residential use of the application site.

3. Evidence on Planning files - 3.1 Planning File P.2465(1) 5/9/1979 Outline application for re-roofing and restoration of derelict house at Roach End Farmhouse – REFUSED. The committee report describes the physical condition of this property in the same condition as that of Mount Pleasant. This property was considered to be abandoned.

Various Further correspondence and enquiries relating to the property, but the Authority maintained that the residential use had been abandoned.

3.2 Planning File P.2465(3) 10/6/2008 E-Mail to Whittaker & Biggs advising that the officers are concerned that the residential use of the property may have become abandoned, which would mean that planning permission would be required to repair and re-occupy the dwelling, that PP would be unlikely to be granted in view of policy restrictions, that any claim that the use has not been abandoned should be given formal consideration by the Authority under the provisions of an LDC application, and that the Authority strongly recommend that this matter is clarified formally prior to the purchase of the property, and certainly prior to any works taking place to repair and re-occupy the property. We asked if they could append a copy of the e-mail to their sales particulars.

16/6/2008 Photographic record of condition of property – see below July 2008 Copy Property Details from Whittaker & Biggs for the sale of Mount Pleasant at auction on 15 July 2008. The details advise:-

- That the property sits within sizeable former garden areas extending to either side of the property, with a small garden area to the front and rear aspects.
- The property is in a poor state of repair with parts of the roof having been stolen and timbers rotting due to water penetration, only partial first floor accommodation being in situ.
- The property offers scope and potential for possible residential/holiday accommodation, subject to obtaining the necessary planning approval.
- There are presently no services connected to the property. Mains electricity was originally connected and there is also mains water in the vicinity and space for septic tank drainage.
- They understand there is no council tax banding for the property.
- Guide price £40,000 plus.

3.3 Planning Enforcement File June 2008 Photographic record of condition of property (taken by CF) – essentially the building was a shell with no windows, doors, partial front roof, no floors, building in a complete state of internal collapse and external dereliction.

4/9/2008 Letter from applicant, stating that she will be commencing repair work on the building from 8 September 2008. Address stated as Mount Pleasant and officers could not contact applicant. Agents requested to ask applicant to call office.

8/9/2008 Mr Harvey called office. CF advised that officers considered the building abandoned and suggested application for LDC be submitted. Mr H advised that he had seen PDNPA’s advice prior to auction, in his view never an intention of former owner to abandon and believes property to be a dwelling and therefore would benefit from pd rights.

15/9/2008 Complaint from neighbour that property being worked on – despite his previously being told its planning status was derelict.

15/9/2009 Information from The Roaches Peak District Website – gives information on the ‘derelict cottage’, states people wandered round ‘this wreck’, and people have offered the owner very tempting sums from time to time but is adamant that the cottage remains as it is. Property sold for £122,000 – with no water, electric or land.

16/9/2008 Record of site inspection by LR with photographic and descriptive record. Notably:

- Scaffolding had been erected and roofer [redacted] on site who had been employed by the owners to remove the remains of the old roof.
- No services currently to the property.
- [redacted] had known previous owner and that [redacted] had been approached in the past by someone wishing to purchase Mount Pleasant, but had refused as [redacted] wanted it to stay as it was.
- [redacted] also confirmed that although property bought for [redacted] and father, soon after [redacted] father became ill and both he and his wife moved into a nursing home.

23 & 24/9/08 LR tried to contact owner and left message to contact him.

23/09/2008 Office Copy Entries – show Mrs Alison Harvey of Hankelow View, Brine Pits Lane, Coole Pilate, Nantwich as the owner of the property. The price paid on 12 August 2008 was £122,000.00. There is no mortgage or other charge.

25/9/2008 LR checks with SMDC.

- Housing section – no record, no grants.
- Council Tax – not listed
- Building Control Section – received a complaint in 2005 that the property was dangerous. Officer inspected but satisfied not immediately dangerous.
- Electoral Register – Property does not appear on register and has not done so throughout their current records dating back to 1982.

22/10/2008 Complaint from another member of public about recent works taking place after the Authority’s view given prior to the auction. Complainant advised that matter subject to enforcement investigation.

28/10/2008 Letter to owner following site visit on 2/10/08 attended by her husband, and PDNPA officers LJR and CF.

- Officers advised that PDNPA consider residential use may have been abandoned, which would mean PP required to repair and re-occupy as dwelling. Due to location, unlikely that PP would be granted as contrary to both national, regional and local planning policies.
- Mr H advised that current works merely repairs to roof, which he did not consider needed PP, and no firm intention at that time to occupy as a dwelling, although internal first floor would be re-instated.
- Discussed the four tests applicable to abandonment and Mr H advised that he had information to prove the previous owner had not intended for the property to become abandoned.

10/11/2008 Letter from owner/applicant in which she states that she has documented evidence detailing, attempts to repair the property, confirming the non-occurrence of intervening use, that there was never any deliberate act of abandonment and the intention was always that it be re-occupied as a residential dwelling. She confirms that despite officer advice not to continue work at the property, her intention is to carry on with repairs to the roof, installation of windows and re-instating the floors as advised at the site meeting.

4/12/2008 Letter to owner advising that in light of the intentions stated in their letter dated 10/11/2008, the Authority will now seek authorisation to commence enforcement action.

22/12/2008 Filenote of tele conversation between LJR and [redacted] in which [redacted] essentially gives the same information as contained in Document A above.

22/12/2008 Photographic record of property – roof now repaired, scaffolding down and flue pipe inserted down chimney.

26/1/2009 PCN issued and served on [redacted]

24/2/2009 PCN response, dated 20/2/2009. This contains various information, which has now been confirmed in the LDC application documents.

26/3/2009 Letter to owner acknowledging receipt of the PCN response. The letter also states:-

- reiterating that the recent works undertaken are considered to be unauthorised
- requests a schedule of works being carried out in view of the recent underpinning works which took place in March 2009, the owners statement that she intends to continue working on the property despite our advice to cease, and Mr Powner’s comment that electricity is to be connected to the property on 1 April 2009
- advised to submit LDC application if she considers that PP is not required (as per her legal advice)

13/5/2009 Filenote of meeting between DJM for the Authority, the owner, Mr A Powner and Niall Blackie (Planning Agent)

- discussed the necessity for PP, the risk of enforcement action and the PDNPA serving an anticipatory EN in respect of the current works, both of which the Agent adamantly disputed.
- Agent and owners would not confirm that they intended to use the building as a dwelling at this stage.
- Advised to submit LDC application if they have evidence which they consider shows that the residential use has not been abandoned.
- Discussion of policy, whether PP likely to be granted and in what form.
- Agent referred to possibility of them serving a Purchase Notice if PP were to be refused.
- Agent confirmed that works were continuing and that windows had now been installed, with timber hardwood frames and double glazed.

14/5/2009 E-mail to Owner in which DJM advises, following legal advice, that case law is supportive of the approach that it is possible to serve an anticipatory enforcement notice and that such notice could require works to be undone that were not in themselves development within the meaning of S.55.

4/6/2009 Filenote of meeting with a [redacted] in reception. [redacted] had called into the office to find out the current status of the property. [redacted] had previously been interested in purchasing the property [redacted] and had seen the property 8 years ago (2001?) and taken photographs and recorded some details in [redacted] diary. [redacted] approached the PDNPA at the time (CHECK P FILE) and been advised that it was unlikely that [redacted] would get PP to renovate it. [redacted] was disappointed that [redacted] had ‘missed the boat', and enquired about the possibility of renovating a similar building on the roaches that had seen. visited the property again 3-4 years ago and noted that slates appeared to have been purposefully removed from the roof. had spoken with someone in the village who claimed to have known the owner and he had left details with them asking for them to be passed on to the owner (presumably with an intention to purchase) partner's contact details and said that would look to provide copies of any photographs or information that had.

11/6/2009 Photographic record shows that windows and doors have now been installed. Trenching work around the property has been commenced

4. Case Law and Legislative Provisions

The application has been submitted under S.192 of the TCPA 1990, with the proposed use described as a resumption of occupation of a residential dwellinghouse. The application has been submitted under the provisions of S.192, rather under S.191 for an existing use – the agent suggests the reason for this relates to potential enforcement issues that have arisen in relation to the works that have taken place since the applicant purchased the property in August 2008.

S.192(2) provides that 'if the LPA are supplied with information satisfying them that the use ... described in the application would be lawful, if instituted or begun at the time of the application, they shall issue a certificate to that effect; and, in any other case, they shall refuse the application.' Circular 10/97 provides guidance on the legislative provisions and procedural requirements in lawful use applications, and states in Para. 8.26 'Where a proposed change of use is involved, it will be necessary to describe the present or last use of the land; and, where the lawfulness of that use is being relied upon to pave the way to implementing the proposed use, provide sufficient information to satisfy the LPA of the lawfulness of the existing use (having regard to the criteria in paragraph 8.16 above for deciding what is lawful'.

The legal issue is whether the use of the building as a single dwellinghouse would be lawful if recommenced (at the time of the application), or whether the buildings lawful use for residential purposes as a single dwelling, has been lost through operation of law, in this case by abandonment. If so, then the building would have a nil use, and any use for residential purposes as a single dwelling would involve a material change of use.

The Agent contends that the former residential use of the building has neither been abandoned nor distinguished, and it simply remains dormant in the context provided by the case of Panton. The Agent states that it is the applicant's contention that the proposed use is lawful, as the use of the dwelling is its existing use.

In order to determine the application we must examine the factual evidence against the four criteria and principles set down in the leading cases of Trustees of the Castell y Mynach Estate and Hughes:-

(i) the physical condition of the building (ii) the length of time for which the building has not been used for residential purposes (iii) whether it has been used for any other purpose, and (iv) the owner's intentions

- It is considered the reference to 'paragraph 8.16' is incorrect and the text should read 'paragraph 8.15', this paragraph dealing with the relevant test of the submitted evidence. The owner's subjective intention is not to be regarded as a decisive factor (Hughes), and the issue of abandonment must be determined objectively i.e., the view to be taken by "a reasonable man", with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances.

The physical condition of the building

The physical condition of the building at the present time is considerably different to that as it stood when the applicant purchased in August 2008. The owner has undertaken various works of repair and renovation to the property (through her contractors), in order to make the building weatherproof and watertight. The agent points out that the application must be determined on the facts as at the time of the application. Whilst agreed this is the correct approach, it is considered that in looking at the facts, the condition of the building prior to the recent works of renovation, must also be a relevant consideration.

The condition of the property in June 2008 is well documented by the photographic record on the Authority files. These show that the building had been allowed to deteriorate into a derelict and totally uninhabitable condition. Evidence states that maintained the property until but the evidence is unclear as to the extent of any further maintenance to the building after that date until 1995. Evidence then suggests that once the roof was stolen around 1995, the property very quickly fell into disrepair, and that from this point the property was totally neglected, and the building was not maintained in any way to protect it and prevent it from falling further into a derelict state. By 2008, the stone tiled roof to the rear of the building had been stolen and the roof timbers and structure had collapsed, the remaining tiled roof was in a poor state with large holes, and rotted timbers, and most of the windows to the building had been lost, although two of the window frames to the front elevation and the door frames, remained. Internally the building was completely derelict having been damaged through water penetration, leaving most of the internal walls and floors collapsed, the debris from the collapsed internal structure, and roof, covering the ground. The building was no longer secure and despite it's dangerous condition, it is clear from the graffiti on the remaining walls that trespassers had entered the building and caused further vandalism. The Agents details for the auction confirm that at the time no services were connected, although there had previously been an electricity connection, and a mains water connection lay in the vicinity (Comment: this conflicts with Documents B which suggest that services were connected to the property in the late 1970's).

Evidence to the physical condition of the building at the time of the application has been provided by the applicant in the form of the structural report (Document C). This was commissioned in May 2009 to support this application, and to evidence that the works undertaken to date by the owners do not materially affect the external appearance, of the building (and thus do not require planning permission). The report concludes that, given the age of the property, it is in relatively good condition, and that the building is of substantial construction notwithstanding the state it was in prior to the repair works being undertaken. Since the applicants purchase of the property, works of repair and renovation have been undertaken by the current owner, despite the Authority's advice to cease works until the lawful use of the building could be formally determined. The owner considers that the works are authorised and/or do not require planning permission, since the lawful use as a dwelling has not been abandoned. The Authority's view has been that until it can be shown that the lawful use for residential purposes has not been abandoned, the works remain unauthorised. Full details of the works carried out were not provided with the application. Details of the contractors were requested from the applicant, in order to consult with them on the extent of the works undertaken since August 2009. Despite initially refusing the request, the information was reluctantly provided, albeit too late to make written consultation of the contractors within the 8 week determination period. The Authority files suggest that the works undertaken include the provision of a roof, underpinning the building, re-pointing, laying a new ground floor and installing windows and frames and doors, although two windows remain boarded up inexplicably. These evidently comprise works to make the property structurally sound and weatherproof. Photographs on the Authority files dated 11 June 2009, provide a photographic record of the condition of the property around the time of the application. These show that the building has had an entirely new roof, new windows and doors, it is now weatherproof and watertight, and trenching along the field and road suggest that some or a number of services have been connected.

the length of time for which the building has not been used for residential purposes The property has not been occupied since the mid 1970's, a period of approximately 35 years. Although [redacted] visited the property after that time to carry out maintenance with [redacted], no residential use was taking place. There is no evidence to suggest that the [redacted] ever tried to let the property, nor did [redacted] agree to sell the property to any of the interested parties that made offers to purchase the property from [redacted]. After [redacted] parents died [redacted] continued to hold on to the property, and the fact that [redacted] made no attempt to rent out, and refused to sell the property during [redacted] lifetime, strongly suggests that [redacted] wanted the property to lie empty (despite falling into disrepair) rather than have any other person living in it. The facts are very similar to those in the case of Trustees of the Castell y Mynach Estate, in which Nolan J. suggested that a conscious decision not to re-let the property which had then lain empty for approximately 20 years, coupled with the fact that the property was allowed to fall into an uninhabitable state, had to come close to positive abandonment.

whether it has been used for any other purpose There is no evidence that the building has been used for any other purpose during the time that it has been vacant.

the owner's intentions Direct evidence of the previous owner's intentions is not available. The applicant has dealt with the issue by providing a letter from [redacted] which states that 'it was never [redacted] intention for the property to become so run down, and [redacted] always intended it be used again as a dwelling'. Further evidence was provided by a number of standard letters which state that it was always [redacted] intention that the property be occupied as a residential dwelling. Four of these letters are from members of [redacted] but there is no explanation as to how the signatories of the remaining seven letters knew [redacted]. It is unclear how they knew the former owner, and how they knew of intentions for the property. The agent has summed up the applicant's position, by saying that former owner '....demonstrated a clear intention to maintain the dwellinghouse use'.

This view is at odds with [redacted] actions, which show that little maintenance was carried out to the property after [redacted] and that after the roof was stolen in 1995, no attempt was made to maintain the property and prevent it falling into disrepair. [redacted] suggests that after 1995, it became impossible for [redacted] to make any attempt to restore the property, both physically, or financially, in view of the security risk. It is clear that unfortunately [redacted] for whatever reason, did not maintain the property, and it was allowed to fall into disrepair and then dereliction very quickly. No attempt seems to have been made to secure the property, which inevitably led to random acts of vandalism, which assisted the encroaching dereliction.

It would appear that there were enquiries and requests made of [redacted] to sell the property, but these were always rejected. The authors of the Roaches website claims that the owner was offered very tempting sums in the past, but was adamant that the cottage remained as it was. There is also the comment from the roofing contractor (file note dated 16/9/2008) in which he told the Authority's officer that he had known the former owner, and that although [redacted] had been approached to sell the property, [redacted] had refused, wanting the property to stay as it was. This view falls in line with the fact that the former owner never made any attempts to rent the property, give or sell it to family, or put the property on the open market.

The Agent has argued that the facts of the case are similar to those discussed in Hale v Lichfield District Council [1979] JPL 425, otherwise unreported. In that case the property was the owner's home, and the property had lain empty whilst she was in hospital. Despite her wish to return there one day she eventually died in hospital some 13 years later. The facts are entirely different to those under consideration here, and the report on that case makes it clear that the finding of no abandonment, was based upon the subjective view of the owner's intention. It is clear from the later case of Hughes, that the correct approach is an objective one, ie the views of a reasonable man, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances.

The agent states that the applicant, 'purchased the property with the intention that it be brought back into habitable use', and 'had not considered the ...use might be considered by the LPA to be abandoned.' This is despite the fact that the Estate Agents marketing the property were advised by the PDNPA that the Authority considered the residential use to have been abandoned, and asked for that information to be attached to the sales particulars. The guide price for the property at auction was £40k, which reflects the planning status of the property that the residential use had been abandoned.

5. Conclusion The evidence clearly shows that the property has not been used for residential purposes for a period of approximately 30 plus years, which is a significant period of time. For 20 or more of those years, the property had been allowed to deteriorate into such a condition that by June 2008, it had become derelict and uninhabitable. Although the property has not been used for any other purpose, neither has the property been allowed to be used for residential purposes. Certain evidential facts are clear, in that the owner took no positive actions to allow the property to be used for residential purposes during [redacted] lifetime through either renting the property, or allowing it to be sold. Neither has any evidence has been adduced to suggest that [redacted] made any attempt to reside in the property [redacted]. Despite the fact that maintaining the property had become such a security and financial burden, [redacted] made no attempt to allow its re-use in order to remove the burden and/or provide security and maintenance of the property.

The applicant's evidence (Docs. A and B) takes a subjective view of the former owner's intention, and suggests that [redacted] wished the property to remain in use for residential purposes. By contrast, the comments on the roaches website and by the roofing contractor, suggest that the former owner did not wish the property to be lived in at all, and states that [redacted] resisted tempting sums of money to sell the property, and wished it to remain as it was. Unfortunately all of this evidence is hearsay, and subjective in any event.

In Nicholls v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] J.P.L. 880 McNeill J. pointed out that the intention of the owner may be established from both direct evidence and from their conduct, whether or not this may contradict their direct evidence. Unfortunately, as has now passed away, we are not able to obtain direct evidence as to intentions. However, it is considered that conduct is convincing evidence that had no intention to use the property for residential purposes, and that actions represent a positive act of abandonment of the residential use.

The agent argues that the residential use has not been abandoned and has simply lain dormant in accordance with the decision in Panton. In Panton, the Deputy Judge suggested that a dormant use represented a use which had arisen by way of a material change of use, but was now inactive, possibly for a long period of time. It is considered that the residential use has been lost by operation of law ie, abandonment, but in any event, it is considered that a use cannot lay dormant where it is incapable of taking place.

Kennedy L.J in Hughes held that the test of abandonment was an objective one, ie, the view of the reasonable man with knowledge of all relevant circumstances, and the subjective intention of the owner was not a decisive factor. Taking all four relevant factors into account, it is concluded that in view of:-

(i) the substantial length of time the property lay empty (ii) the fact that the property had not been maintained and had been allowed (intentionally or not) to become derelict and uninhabitable (iii) the former owner's refusal to allow the property to be used for residential purposes by selling or letting the property,

that any reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances would conclude that by June 2008, the residential use of the property was not in a dormant state, but that it had been abandoned.

The facts of this case are complicated by the applicant's actions during the last 12 months to repair and renovate the building prior to submitting this application. The applicant has stated that at the time of purchase she was unaware of the PDNPA officers view of abandonment. This advice was given to the Auctioneers with a clear request to attach a copy of the advice to the sales particulars. Subsequently the applicant and her agent have been clearly advised by officers on a number of occasions on both the issue of abandonment, and that any works to renovate the property were likely to be unauthorised. Despite this advice, works to renovate the property have continued during the last twelve months.

It is considered that by the time the applicant purchased the property in August 2008, the property had already been abandoned and its lawful use was a nil use. In addition, works undertaken on the property since August 2008 are considered to be unauthorised and any resumption of the use of the property for residential purposes would not be lawful, and would require planning permission for the reasons outlined above.

The application should therefore be refused.

Date: 26 August 2009 Re: Mount Pleasant, Upper Hulme.

Message rec'd to ring Mrs Roberts (member) about the application. Tel'd her to confirm that I was dealing with the application and to ask how I could help. She wanted to know how and when I would be dealing with the matter, and in particular on what basis we decided whether a use of a dwelling had been abandoned or not, when the building clearly looked like a house from the outside.

I explained that the decision was taken purely on the facts of the case applied to the relevant case law. In cases of abandonment, the most relevant case law was Hughes which laid out the four criteria that we needed to take into account when deciding whether a use had been abandoned or not. I went through each of the criteria with Mrs Roberts in detail and explained fully how a decision would be made.

Whilst at first she was surprised the decision did not require material decisions to be taken into account, she did ultimately appreciate how the facts had to be applied to the case law to make a decision.

She queried what would happen if the application were refused, and I said in that case the building would have a nil use, and the owners would need to apply for planning permission to undertake any use with it. She said that she had not appreciated this was the case and thought a refusal would mean it could just never be lived in again. I said that was not correct. A refusal simply meant the existing use had been abandoned, but that would not prevent the owner from applying for planning permission for a residential use once again, and if that was against policy, then to make a clear application showing why an exception should be made in that particular case. She was very happy with this and thought this was probably the best way forward. I said clearly that I would not be taking any of these matters into consideration, and that all my remit required was a consideration of the historical facts presented in the evidence and their application to the relevant case law.

She said that she was away when the decision was due to be made, and I offered to e-mail her a copy of the decision when it was issued. We discussed issues of protocol covering delegated authority and the appeal process, and I confirmed that although the main legislation had been amended to provide a time limit for LDC appeals, the Order had not been amended as yet, and no time limit was yet in place. Dear Sir/Madam

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Application Code Number: NP/SM/0609/0463 Application for Certificate of Lawful Development for proposed use as a dwelling. Mount Pleasant Upper Hulme Leek

This letter acknowledges formal receipt of the above application which was formally registered on 11 June 2009. The person who will initially be dealing with your application is Clare Palmer. Your application falls into a category of application which can be determined by officers acting under delegated powers. We aim to make such decisions within a time period of 8 weeks. However, some times these applications are not straightforward and may take longer than 8 weeks to determine. If this happens, we will notify you and request you to agree in writing an extension to the period in which a decision may be made.

If by 06 August 2009

- You have not been told that your application is invalid; or
- You have not been told that your fee cheque has been dishonoured; or
- You have not been given a decision in writing; or
- You have not agreed in writing to extend the period in which a decision may be given

then you can appeal to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under section 195 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). You must use a form which you can get from The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN (telephone 0117 3728000).

It may be necessary for the case officer to make a visit to inspect the property. In that case Clare Palmer will contact you in due course to arrange an appointment which is mutually convenient.

As any determination is made on the basis of fact rather than the planning merits of the development, it is usually necessary to consult various third parties, i.e., neighbours, parish councils etc, for any factual comments they may wish to make on the application, which could verify, or alternatively conflict with, evidence in support of the application. If it is necessary to consult on your application, this will usually be done once the site visit has been made.

In the meantime, if you have any queries in connection with your application, please do not hesitate to contact Clare Palmer.

Yours faithfully

Karen Zubertowski Administration Officer T&CP (Environmental impact Assessment) (E&W) Regulations 1999

This form is to be used for all proposals which fall in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the above Regulations.

PLEASE INDICATE BELOW WITH A TICK IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX WHICH SCHEDULE THE PROPOSAL FALLS WITHIN AND FOR SCHEDULE 2 PROJECTS INDICATE WHETHER AN EIA IS REQUIRED GIVING REASONS:

1. The proposal falls within Schedule 1 and therefore an EIA has to be provided.

2. The proposal falls within Schedule 2 of the regulations and an EIA is required for the following reasons:

3. The proposal falls within Schedule 2 of the regulations but an EIA is not required as the development does not have a significant impact on the environment due to its characteristics, location and potential impact.

Form completed by .................................. Planning Manager

Date: Issues to consider:

- Impact of development on neighbouring properties – overlooking etc
- Landscape impact – topography, features of importance etc
- Design and scale of development
- Access – parking, etc
- Wider neighbour notification letters
- Photographic evidence, showing relationship of proposal to/on neighbouring properties, plus wider spatial impact of development on the streetscene/landscape, (views from public vantage points and rights of way etc).
- Any agreed amendments/alterations or contacts with agent/applicant/neighbours etc prior to determination should be noted on this sheet including date and reason.

Comment

Rev. for checking and allocating.

Sufficient evidence to validate.

KAREN 9/6/09

Could you please check the fee posting.

Thanks. A planning proposal has been submitted on-line to your LPA using the Planning Portal. You must collect this proposal from the Portal within the next 30 days.

You are obliged to contact the applicant within 10 working days.

Using the Portal fee calculator, the user calculated that the fee due was: £167.5 GBP. It is your responsibility to ensure that this fee is correct.

You should expect to receive a cheque payment for this amount.

The proposal reference number is: PP-00746034v1 DATE: JUNE 2009

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS OF PROPOSED USE

MOUNT PLEASANT ROACH ROAD UPPER HULME NEAR LEEK STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

MRS A HARVEY

SUPPORTING SUBMISSION

FBC MANBY BOWDLER LLP ROUTH HOUSE HALL COURT HALL PARK WAY TELFORD TF3 4NJ NB/AJS/931548/1/Har Application is made by Alison Harvey for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use in respect of the dwelling known as Mount Pleasant Roach Road Upper Hulme Near Leek. The proposed use is the resumption of occupation of a residential dwellinghouse. It is the applicant's contention that the proposed use is lawful, as the use of the property as a dwelling is its existing use and there has been no abandonment of that use. Having regard for the ability or appropriateness of the Council taking enforcement steps in relation to the current situation or any future occupation, this application is made as one for a proposed use, rather than for existing use.

Background. The Applicant purchased the property in July 2008, it having being placed on the market for sale following The property was, and remains, a substantial dwelling.

The property was originally built and constructed by a James Williamson, Yeoman, in 1844. On 10 December 1862, it was conveyed to Richard Williamson for the sum of £25.00. In 1882, the property passed out of the Williamson family, by conveyance to a William Spooner Brough and remained with him until his death after which the property was purchased by a William Alexander Tatton, a silk mill owner. In 1929, the property was transferred into the ownership of Messrs W Tatton and Co Ltd.

From 1930, the Plant family rented the property, although the property was not purchased until March 1971. John Plant worked for the mill. Mount Pleasant was their family home and was kept in good repair during the period of their occupation. John and his wife Agnes had 3 children before they moved to Mount Pleasant, and another 5 during their occupancy there.

John Plant had been particularly fond of his garden and grew both flowers and vegetables which provided sustenance during the war years. The family was very sociable, sometimes inviting strangers in and providing hospitality. Agnes Plant was a very proud lady, a competent housewife and mother who kept her house and household in order.

In purchased the property, so that it would remain in family ownership. The parents were elderly and wanted to ensure they could remain in the property without concern over rent. After the death of the parents at the end of the 1970s, continued the upkeep of the property for many years with the intention that it remain a family home.

The applicant and the family of the consider that the property has remained in residential use throughout the period of their combined ownerships and that that use continues today. The purpose of this application for a Certificate of Lawfulness is to regularise that position legally.

Caselaw. In 2000, the Court of Appeal considered the issue of abandonment in the case of Hughes. The Court of Appeal considered what was the proper test for establishing whether the use of a property continued and concluded that the relevant factors to be considered were:

i) The physical condition of the property;

ii) The length of time for which the building had not been used for residential purposes;

iii) Whether it had been used for any other purposes;

Hughes v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and South Holland District Council [2000] JPL 826 iv) The owners' intentions having regard for what the reasonable man, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, would conclude.

This is the test against which the lawfulness of Mount Pleasant should be considered.

The applicants refer to the letter provided by [redacted] as to the occupation of the property by [redacted] family, attached marked "A". It confirms the details of the historic use of the property, the circumstances of their acquisition, the use of the property during their ownership, and the intentions of the family in respect of the dwelling. The history of the site clearly indicates that neither the use of the dwellinghouse on site or the use of the land for residential purposes has been abandoned. It is the case that the dwelling, although used more infrequently in recent years, was intended for use as a dwelling by the [redacted] family and latterly by the Applicants. The applicants also refer to a further letter, produced and signed by various family members, including three of [redacted] and which confirms that there has never been any intention to use the property for any purpose other than a residential dwelling. These letters are attached marked "B".

Physical Condition. In older age, the upkeep became more of a task, and following [redacted] death, [redacted] found it more difficult to keep the property in good repair and secure. The dwellinghouse has been subject, in recent years, to vandalism. Part of the roof was stolen in 1995 resulting in water ingress and causing further damage. Following [redacted] acquisition of the property, [redacted] managed the upkeep of the property. A structural report is attached marked "C". The works of repair recently carried out did not materially affect the external appearance of the building and did not, accordingly, amount to development, by virtue of s55(2)(a) of the Act. The question of physical condition of the property must be addressed at today's date. The report shows that it is sound, with only a little further structural work being recommended. The other works needed to render it habitable would be internal, and again, not such as to amount to development.

Length of time not used / Used for other purposes. Until the late 1970s the application property was used as a permanent dwelling by Mr & Mrs Plant. From that time until about 1998 the dwelling was kept in use though not occupied by [redacted] who used to visit the property regularly to maintain it and look after it. The residential use of the property and its garden continued during [redacted] ownership and it has never been the intention of [redacted] or indeed the Applicants, to abandon the use of the dwelling on site or the land which comprises its curtilage and gardens. Certainly there has been no intervening use of the dwelling or of its curtilage and garden areas. The period on non-use after 1995 when the roof was stolen is not long enough to be material in planning terms.

Intention. [redacted] always retained a keen interest in the property which, for [redacted] brought back many fond memories. [redacted] visited it regularly and despite ageing years, demonstrated a clear intention to maintain the dwellinghouse use. Some attempts were made to carry out works of maintenance to the property: [redacted] arranged for the outside toilet to be demolished and had parts of the roof and chimneys repaired. Following a break-in at the property, [redacted] reported the matter to the police. [redacted] also managed various internal works of maintenance and repair. Notwithstanding [redacted] efforts, the property fell into disrepair, exacerbated by damage caused by vandals during the last few years. There has never been a point where the owner had an intention contrary to use as a dwelling. Even before the case of Hughes, the intention of parties has been considered to be a determinative factor in addressing the continuance of a residential use over time. In 1979, the issue was addressed in the case of Hale. In that instance, Mrs Hale had spent the last 13 years of her life in hospital during which time her home was entirely left empty and no repairs were carried out. Following her death, personal representatives of the estate obtained a declaration to the effect that the residential use of the property had not been abandoned due to her clear intention to maintain it as her home. The circumstances in Hale are similar to that of Mount Pleasant where it has been the advancing years and personal circumstances of the owner which have lead to the property falling into disrepair.

The evidence of [redacted] in [redacted] letter of 16 February 2009 (attached marked "A") demonstrates a clear intention that the property should remain in residential use, as a family home and that the use was never intended to be abandoned. Indeed, the physical condition of the building does not of itself lead to a conclusion of abandonment. The property remains substantially complete and there is no need for any element of rebuilding or substantial renovation to bring the property up to modern standards for habitation. Whist it is not currently occupied as a permanent residence, it has remained lawfully in residential use, until recently being furnished and looked after. It is clear, therefore, that the residential use of the site has not been extinguished. Accordingly, the use remains lawful and a reversion to that use would not constitute a material change.

Summary. The existing property on site was occupied as a main family residence from at least 1930 until the late 1970s, at which time it had been purchased by [redacted] with the sole intention that it remain a residential property in the family ownership. Deeds and documents have indicated that the property was in fact used as a family residence from its construction in 1844. The present condition of the dwelling precludes its use currently, although the evidence submitted with this application makes clear that there has never been any intention to abandon the dwellinghouse use. The reason for its state of disrepair is quite simply due to the increased instances of vandalism and break-in during the owner's advancing years at a time when it was not used as a daily residence. The residential use has neither been abandoned nor extinguished. The use was, lawfully, dormant in the context of the case of Panton.

The current owners and Applicants purchased the property with the intention that it be brought back into habitable use. The Applicants had not considered that the previous dwellinghouse use might be considered by the local planning authority to be abandoned, given the clear intention of the previous owner to maintain the status quo, the relatively short period of non-occupation, and indeed the previous owner's attempts at carrying out repairs to the property despite having lost her husband and her own old age. Applying the test set out in Hughes, it is clear that the residential use has not been abandoned and that a reasonable man having regard for the circumstances of the matter would conclude that a residential use remained. Accordingly, and on the basis of the supporting evidence, a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use should be granted for the resumption of occupation of the dwelling and the residential use of the application site.

______________________________________________________________________

2 Hale v Lichfield District Council [1979] JPL 425 3 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Panton (1999) 79 P & CR 485 Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed use or development.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Section 192, as amended by section 10 of the Planning and Compensation act 1991.

Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995

Publication of applications on planning authority websites. Please note that the information provided on this application form and in supporting documents may be published on the Authority's website. If you require any further clarification, please contact the Authority's planning department.

1. Applicant Name, Address and Contact Details

| Title: Ms | First name: A | Surname: Harvey | |-----------|---------------|----------------| | Company name: | | | | Street address: Hankelow View | | | | Brine Pits Lane | | | | Coole Pilate | | | | Town/City: Nantwich | | | | County: Cheshire | | | | Country: | | | | Postcode: CWS 8AX | | |

Are you an agent acting on behalf of the applicant? ☐ Yes ☐ No

2. Agent Name, Address and Contact Details

| Title: Mr | First Name: Niall | Surname: Blackie | |-----------|-------------------|-----------------| | Company name: FBC Manby Bowdler LLP | | | | Street address: Routh House | | | | Hall Court | | | | Hall Park Way | | | | Town/City: Telford | | | | County: Shropshire | | | | Country: England | | | | Postcode: TF3 4NJ | | |

Telephone number: 01952292129 Mobile number: 01952291716 Fax number: 01952291716 Email address: n.blackie@fbcmb.co.uk

Ref: 000746034

NP/SM/ 06090463

Ref: 15: 3.6 Planning Portal Reference: 000746034 3. Site Address Details

Full postal address of the site (including full postcode where available)

| House: | 0 | |--------|---| | Suffix: | | | House name: | Mount Pleasant | | Street address: | Roach Road | | Upper Hulme | | Town/City: | LEEK | | County: | | | Postcode: | ST13 8UB |

Description of location or a grid reference (must be completed if postcode is not known):

| Easting: | 399978 | | Northing: | 362146 |

4. Pre-application Advice

Has assistance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this application?

- Yes
- No

If Yes, please complete the following information about the advice you were given (this will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently):

- Officer name: Mr. Dan Matthewman
- Reference: P.2465
- Date (DD/MM/YYYY): 18/05/2009 (Must be pre-application submission)

Details of the pre-application advice received:

Agreed that the Applicant should submit a Certificate of Lawfulness application providing details as to the use of the property as a dwelling.

5. Interest in Land

Please state the applicant's interest in the land:

- a) Owner
- b) Lessee
- c) Occupier
- d) Other

6. Authority Employee/Member

With respect to the Authority, I am:

- a) a member of staff
- b) an elected member
- c) related to a member of staff
- d) related to an elected member

Do any of these statements apply to you?

- Yes
- No

7. Grounds for Application

Information about the existing use(s)

Please explain why you consider the existing or last use of the land is lawful, or why you consider that any existing buildings, which it is proposed to alter or extend are lawful:

The property has been in residential use since at least 1930 and, from deeds and documents, since the time of its construction in 1844. The property is currently unoccupied but the use has not been abandoned and the applicant considers that the proposed resumption of occupancy is lawful.

Please see Supporting Submission

Please list the supporting documentary evidence (such as a planning permission) which accompanies this application:

Supporting Submission and attachments marked "A", "B" and "C"

Location Plan, Plans and Elevations (existing)

If you consider the existing or last use is within a 'Use Class' in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) state which one:

- C3

Information about the proposed use(s)

If you consider the proposed use is within a 'Use Class' in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), state which one:

- C3

Is the proposed operation or use:

- Permanent
- Temporary

Why do you consider that a Lawful Development Certificate should be granted for this proposal?

The proposal is for the resumption of occupation of an existing residential property.

Please see Supporting Submission

### 8. Description of Proposal

Does the proposal consist of, or include, the carrying out of building or other operations?

- Yes
- No

Does the proposal consist of, or include, a change of use of the land or building(s)?

- Yes
- No

Has the proposal been started?

- Yes
- No

### 9. Site Visit

Can the site be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land?

- Yes
- No

If the planning authority needs to make an appointment to carry out a site visit, whom should they contact? (Please select only one)

- The agent
- The applicant
- Other person

### 10. Declaration

I/we hereby apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional information.

Date: 05/06/2009 Site plan Scale 1:500

HULME UPRIGHT MANNING ARCHITECTS TOWN PLANNERS INTERIOR DESIGNERS

Highpoint Festival Park Hanley Stoke-on-Trent ST1 5SH

Tel: 01782 208600 Email - stoke@hum-arch.co.uk

Client Mrs A. Harvey

Project Existing plans to Mount Pleasant Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Title Plan as Existing

Status

Date May 09 Scale As Shown Job Ref.

Drawn ME Checked

Drawing No. Revision Copyright of this drawing is vested in the Architect and it must not be copied or reproduced without consent. Figured dimensions only are to be taken from this drawing. All contractors must visit the site and be responsible for taking and checking all dimensions relative to their work. Holme Upright Planning to be advised of any variation between drawings and site conditions.

DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING.............IF IN DOUBT ASK

Site location plan Scale 1:1250

NP/SM/ 06090463 Existing side elevation scale 1:100

Existing front elevation scale 1:100 Existing ground floor plan

scale 1:50 Existing first floor plan scale 1:50 To whom it may concern

Re: MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK ST13 8UB

Mount Pleasant was my family's home from 1930 until July 2008, when it was sold upon the sad, unexpected, and sudden demise of [redacted].

The property was originally a one up, one down cottage, built in 1844, with later additions either side. It was owned by Tattons Silk Mill, and was rented by my parents, John William Plant and Agnes Plant, in January 1930.

My Father worked for Tattons as a dyehouse labourer, and Mother was a full time housewife and mother.

On 3 Feb [redacted] was born in Mount Pleasant. I was born there in [redacted] and [redacted].

[redacted] was born in Meerbrook village, some time before, and one of the reasons we moved to Mount Pleasant was for a fresher environment, as my Father suffered from a pollen allergy which was more prevalent down in the valley.

At one time, there were eight members of our family living at Mount Pleasant, and it was a very happy family home for many years to come.

My Father saw active service during the First World War, and during the Second World War he was a firespotter, sitting on Tatton's roof, and also manned the siren for two nights each week. Mother was a full time mother and housewife.

The property had electricity installed in 1963, and the telephone was connected in the early 1970s. The phone number was Leek 329.

My father's garden was very important to him at Mount Pleasant – it was his pride and joy - and our family never went hungry, even during the war when he would sometimes be tending the garden until midnight, taking advantage of the double summer time. Vegetables and flowers were grown, and rabbits were sometimes shot from one of the upstairs windows!

My Father and Mother were very sociable people and would talk to anybody. They often allowed the climbers to get changed in their kitchen, making them a cup of tea, and chatting to them. bought Mount Pleasant from Tattons in the early 1970s to ensure that it would always remain the family home. By this time, which remained the home until she passed away, unexpectedly, was a happy soul who spent much of her life at Mount Pleasant with her grandparents. She didn't go to school after the age of 11 because of illness, and I remember how she used to go up to the cottage on her little panda motorbike to spend time with my Father and Mother. She had many fond memories of her childhood and adult life at Mount Pleasant, and the precious time she spent there, and this was one of the reasons she did not want to sell it during her lifetime.

maintained the property until her death, after which time various members of the family helped look after the place, although she was stubborn and proud and even if she needed help, she would not have asked for it.

The 'thunderbox' – outdoor loo - was taken down in the 1980s as an internal loo had been installed some time earlier and I remember that she had the roof repaired and the chimney pots were replaced. She kept the place tidy and it was carpeted and furnished.

The property was broken into and the fireplace and water geyser were stolen. She had died by then, so we repaired the property for her and the break in was reported to the police. However, it was broken into again on several further occasions.

The rear roof was stolen overnight sometime in 1995 - beautiful heavy sandstone flags - and the property fell into a state of disrepair from then onwards due to water ingress and further vandalism.

Mount Pleasant was furnished and carpeted, but these items were stolen or destroyed by the vandals over the subsequent years. I remember there being a dressing table and other items of furniture strewn on the road on one occasion, and all the lovely old floor slabs were stolen.

It was never her intention for the property to become so run down, and she always intended for it to be a residential dwelling, but once the roof was stolen, it was impossible for her both financially and practically – with the security issues - to restore it sufficiently to prevent it falling into a state of disrepair.

a very proud and single-minded woman who would not ask for help from the family and kept everything very close. The death of her beloved at such a young age, had a marked effect on her for the rest of her life. She could not bear to get rid of the long standing family home, Mount Pleasant, which held so many happy memories of her childhood and family life, and where she had spent so much of her short life. She held onto those memories very dearly, and always considered Mount Pleasant to be her family home, albeit in a state of some disrepair in latter years. when life was simpler and less bureaucratic, and expected home to remain a home – that's what it had always been. I would never have believed that local officials could have deemed it to be anything other than that, and would have been devastated at the possibility that Mount Pleasant might no longer be considered a home, as it had been as such long before the Peak Park authority was established. Indeed, would this matter even have been raised if I was still alive? I would certainly have made my feelings very clear to you, and, as a family, we would all have supported this. It seems incredible that there is any question over Mount Pleasant being a home, just because I was unable to maintain the property due to theft, wanton vandalism, finances, and encroaching old age.

As a family, we would be delighted for Mount Pleasant to be repaired and restored to its former 'glory', and would take great pleasure in seeing it as someone else's happy family home, and I know that the local community feels the same.

I do hope that the necessary authorities take heed of the information within this letter, and realise that Mount Pleasant was our family home, has never been anything other than our family home, and is still considered as such by the remaining members of my family. To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted].

Our parents lived at Mount Pleasant until their deaths [redacted].

After their deaths, [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant – repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time. Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and the intention has always been that it be occupied as a residential dwelling. To Whom it May Concern

Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted], who

Our parents lived at Mount Pleasant until their deaths [redacted].

After their deaths, [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant – repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time. Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and the intention has always been that it be occupied as a residential dwelling. To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted] who [redacted].

Our parents lived at Mount Pleasant until their deaths [redacted].

After their deaths [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant – repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time. Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and the intention has always been that it be occupied as a residential dwelling. To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 9UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted] who

Our parents lived at Mount Pleasant until their deaths [redacted].

After their deaths, [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant – repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time. Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and the intention has always been that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

11 08 2005 To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted] who [redacted].

After the parents' deaths [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant—repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and [redacted] intention was always that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

Name and Signature

[Redacted]

Address

[Redacted]

Date 8th 9 - 06 To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, Nr LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted] who [redacted].

After [redacted] parents' deaths, [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant - repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and [redacted] intention was always that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

Name and Signature

[Redacted]

Address

[Redacted]

Date: 6/7/15 To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted] who [redacted].

After [redacted]'s parents' deaths [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant – repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and [redacted]'s intention was always that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

[Redacted]

Name and Signature

[Redacted]

Address

10.9.08

Date To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [Name], who [details].

After [parents' death], [Name] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant – repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and [Name]’s intention was always that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

Name and Signature

Address

Date To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted] who [redacted].

After [redacted] parents' deaths, [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant – repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and [redacted] intention was always that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

[Redacted]

Name and Signature

[Redacted]

Address

[Redacted]

Date To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted] who [redacted].

After [redacted]'s parents' death, [redacted] attempted to maintain Mount Pleasant—repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and [redacted]'s intention was always that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

[Signature]

Name and Signature

[Address]

Date: 9.9.08 To Whom It May Concern

Re: Background information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by [redacted] who [redacted].

After the parents' deaths, [redacted] did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant - repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, i.e. stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and [redacted] intention was always that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

Name and Signature

Address

Date Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

Structural Appraisal

at

Mount Pleasant Roach Road Upper Hulme ST13 8UB

for

Mrs A Harvey

25 Mount Parade Newcastle under Lyme Staffordshire ST5 1BF

Tel: 01782 349400 Fax: 01782 349401 Email: info@bbo-consulting.co.uk Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 External Observations

3.0 Internal Observations

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Appendix A Photographs 1.0 Introduction

ABA Consulting were appointed to carry out a visual structural appraisal of this building.

The purpose of the appraisal is to assess the current structural condition and identify any significant remedial works necessary to maintain the structural integrity.

The survey was carried out on 26 May 2009. The weather was fine and dry.

The dwelling is located adjacent to Roach Road. The front elevation is approximately 7 metres from the roadside.

The building is slightly elevated above road level and ground levels continue to rise to the rear.

The building is an old stone cottage that is currently being renovated. Various repairs have already been carried out.

2.0 External Observations

Front Elevation

The cottage is constructed in stone masonry with a stone tiled roof. The roof pitches to the front and rear with central ridge between end gables. The roof has previously been stripped and original tiles re-laid to incorporate a felt membrane beneath the battens. The roof ridge line appears relatively straight with no undulations noted to the front slope. Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

Chimney stacks are located on the right side elevation and at one third from the left side elevation. Both appear to be in reasonable conditions, although some repointing is required.

The front elevation contains 3 No. window openings at first floor level with 2 No. window openings and 2 No. door openings at ground floor. There also appears to have been another central opening at ground floor, which has been infilled previously. The stone lintel and cill are visible to the infilled opening adjacent to the window of the central ground floor room. This is likely to have been carried out during the works to the original extension which is considered to be in excess of 75 - 100 yrs

All openings have original stone cills and lintels above.

Areas of stone masonry have been re-pointed although generally the mortar joints are in reasonable condition given its age.

The building has been extended some time previously with the central section being original and the two gables more recent. The extended sections simply butt up to the original masonry, although the right side has since been course bonded above the door opening.

Cracking is noted between the right window cill at first floor down to the head of the window below. There is also rotation in the window cills and lintels to suggest some settlement has occurred on the front right corner. This is considered to be isolated movement and would expect the underpinning works to have stabilised this corner.

Areas of stone masonry have been repointed with some joints raked out ready to be repointed. The weathering to the face of the stone is generally consistent to all areas which would indicate it is original construction. Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

The wall has slight undulations over its length and height, although not significantly out of plumb.

The front right corner and side elevation has recently been underpinned using the traditional mass concrete 'hit and miss' method. This does not appear to have disturbed the original stone work, although mortar joints need to be repointed to maintain weather tightness.

Right Side Elevation

This is a gabled elevation with stone copings extending slightly above the roof level.

This elevation contains one small window opening at ground and first floor.

The stone masonry has been repointed above eaves level and prepared for repointing at lower level. There are no significant cracks to note, although a slight drop in the bed joints is noted towards the front.

The full length of the side elevation has been underpinned.

Again there are undulations in the gable although given the thickness of the wall these are not excessive.

Rear Elevation

Ground levels have been reduced along this elevation and the wall partly underpinned to link with outcropping bedrock towards the rear left corner. Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

There are currently no openings although a first floor door opening and ground floor window have previously been infilled. The stone work to both the infilled openings have consistent weathering with adjacent stonework which would suggest it was carried out some considerable time ago.

The joints between the original and extended sections of the dwelling have opened approximately 2-3mm. There was however, no significant displacement vertically or perpendicular to the original building.

The stone masonry below the original ground level has been raked out and prepared for repointing.

There are undulations noted to the rear elevation and a slight bulge at eaves. This is not excessive given the thickness of hat wall.

Left Side Elevation

Ground levels slope down to the front elevation.

There are no openings to this elevation.

The elevation is gabled with stone copings set slightly above the roof pitch level.

The section of stone masonry above eaves has again been repointed. The masonry below is in relatively good condition although localised areas require repointing to maintain weather tightness. 3.0 Internal Observations

Internally, there are 3 No. rooms at ground floor and first floor divided by the walls to the original central section.

A new ground floor slab has been installed with damp proof membrane visible to the perimeters.

The walls are all exposed stone masonry, which have been repointed and repaired previously.

The 1st floor has been replaced with new joists spanning front to rear.

The roof is now supported by new rafters spanning between the steel purlins to the ridge and wall plate at eaves level.

When the building was extended it appears the original roof was raised approximately 400mm. This is evident in the change in stone masonry beneath the roof pitch and lack of course bonding with the original stonework. Although there are isolated bonded sections of masonry to link with the original, it is recommended that each course is bonded to avoid any slippage. This applies to the two internal walls on the front slope.

Some new door openings have been formed at ground and 1st floor level and existing openings built up.

The stairs had not been installed at the time of inspection. 4.0 Conclusions

Given the age of the dwelling, it is in relatively good condition. The stonework is substantial with walls in excess of 400mm thick. With the exception of isolated re-pointing there does not appear to have been any recent alterations to the original stonework.

To the perimeter walls various openings have been infilled with stonework. The degree of weathering is consistent generally with the original central section. This would tend to suggest the stone infill is of considerable age and certainly in excess of 75yrs.

The roof has been stripped and tiles re-laid to incorporate a felt membrane beneath the battens.

With the exception of the cracking noted to the front elevation, there are no significant defects within the external walls. The cracking and distortion of the adjacent window openings suggests some settlement of the front right corner has occurred. This section has since been underpinned including the rear elevation to extend the foundation down to bedrock.

Our recommendations generally are:

1. Re-point joints to maintain weather tightness
2. Ensure gable walls are strapped into roof and floor levels for restraint.
3. Tanking may be required if ground levels extend above Ground Slab level.
4. Internal stonework walls above the original roof pitch to be course bonded.

To summarise and in our opinion the extent of works recently undertaken generally includes repointing and isolated repair works to stone masonry. If the works to the roof are discounted the repair works undertaken have not materially affected the external Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

appearance of the building. Further the building is of substantial construction notwithstanding the state it was in prior to the repair works being undertaken.

Steve Clarkson B.Eng C.Eng MInstE For and on behalf of ABA Consulting ABA Standard Scope and Limitations

This report has been prepared to provide guidance on the structural condition of the property.

We have only inspected and reported upon the cracks within the property, as instructed by the client.

The report is based upon a visual inspection of those areas of the property that were readily accessible at the time of the inspection. It is not normal practice to remove internal finishes, lift carpets or move furniture etc. As such, comments cannot be made on those parts of the structure that were inaccessible or hidden from view at the time of the inspection.

We have limited our report to the most important aspects as stated in the text. The report does not provide a checklist of all repairs and improvements that might be desirable.

Our inspection did not include:-

1. The excavations of any trial holes to establish the depth of foundations and bearing strata.

2. Inspection of non-structural items such as doors, door frames, windows, floor, wall and ceiling finishes, other than where they are relevant to structural movement.

3. We have not inspected any services such as electric, gas, water and drainage.

4. We have not inspected those parts of the structure, which were covered, unexposed or inaccessible and we are therefore unable to report that such parts of the property are free from defect.

This report is for the private and confidential use of the client for whom it is prepared. Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

APPENDIX A Photographs Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

Front Elevation

Rear Elevation Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme

Job Number: 5858 Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

Rear Elevation – Underpinning at low level

Front Elevation – Cracking to right corner